ANOTHER GUNNY G BLOG!

Saturday, March 31, 2007

"Marines' sites and bulletin boards on the Internet are nothing short of amazing regarding what many do not know about Marine Corps history and traditions. There are numerous cases where Marines--some of them even senior enlisted Marines and officers--post and respond to downright erroneous information demonstrating a definite lack of knowledge on various topics of Marine Corps interest. I have addressed several of these individual topics elsewhere on Gunny G's."

"Perhaps, some independent study would be in order--better start at the top!"

"One random example, among many I have noticed, are several items lately where Marines are lambasting someone or other on the subject of one's having dared to refer to a Marine, or Marines, using the term "soldier."

"With righteous indignation they scream that they are Marines, not soldiers, and they decry those who call them such! And rightfully so, in some cases, where the media or an individual, whatever, is using that term within an inappropriate context."

"Of course, they (both the writer and the Marine) are acting out of their own lack of knowlege. The user of the term "soldier" is not aware that he should generally refer to all Marines as "Marines"; and the Marine is very likely ignorant of the fact that the word "soldier" is also correct, in some cases."

"Members of our sister-service, for example, the U.S. Army, are soldiers, that is their name, but Marines are not soldiers in that sense at all. I am referring to Marines as soldiers in a much broader, higher sense, as a class of soldier that goes to the root of what a Marine is and does."

"And, finally, the more recent (2001) book,"Chesty The Story of Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC," by Jon T. Hoffman, LtCol USMCR, in which he named Chapter 1, "Making a Man and a Soldier" Genesis of a Marine."

"And many more references can be found, but suffice to say, for the purpose of my little spiel here, that these few examples should establish that the use of "soldier" was long commonly in use in the Corps."

"And so is the use of the term "soldier" valid? Yes, I think all of the above has shown that it is, but please consider this information within the context which I have presented it. At the same time, however, I agree that the use of that term has generally fallen out of use, but not altogether. It may be that its decline began at the end of WW II when the Marine Corps was fighting for it's continued existence when Congress, and the US Army, was seeking to severly cut back the size of the Corps and/or eliminate it altogether."

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

Death Squad in Delaware: The Case of the Murdered Marineby William Norman Grigg

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w10.html

He survived Iraq, only to suffer Death By Government in the "Land of the Free": Sgt. Derek J. Hale, USMC, ret. ~ RIP

Delaware was the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. It may be the first state to be afflicted with a fully operational death squad – unless a civil lawsuit filed on Friday against the murders of Derek J. Hale results in criminal charges and a complete lustration (in the Eastern European sense of the term) of Delaware's law enforcement establishment.

Hale, a retired Marine Sergeant who served two tours in Iraq and was decorated before his combat-related medical discharge in January 2006, was murdered by a heavily armed 8–12-member undercover police team in Wilmington, Delaware last November 6. He had come to Wilmington from his home in Manassas, Virginia to participate in a Toys for Tots event.

Derek was house-sitting for a friend on the day he was murdered. Sandra Lopez, the ex-wife of Derek's friend, arrived with an 11-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter just shortly before the police showed up. After helping Sandra and her children remove some of their personal belongings, Derek was sitting placidly on the front step, clad in jeans and a hooded sweatshirt, when an unmarked police car and a blacked-out SUV arrived and disgorged their murderous cargo.

Unknown to Derek, he had been under police surveillance as part of a ginned-up investigation into the Pagan Motorcycle Club, which he had joined several months before; the Pagans sponsored the "Toys for Tots Run" that had brought Derek to Delaware. As with any biker club, the Pagans probably included some disreputable people in their ranks. Derek was emphatically not one of them.

In addition to his honorable military service (albeit in a consummately dishonorable war), Derek's personal background was antiseptically clean. He had a concealed carry permit in Virginia, which would not have been issued to him if he'd been convicted of a felony, a narcotics or domestic violence charge, or had any record of substance abuse or mental illness.

On the day he was killed, Derek had been under both physical and electronic (and, according to the civil complaint, illegal) surveillance. Police personnel who observed him knew that his behavior was completely innocuous. And despite the fact that he had done nothing to warrant such treatment, he was considered an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in a purported narcotics ring run by the Pagans.

The police vehicles screeched to a halt in front of the house shortly after 4:00 p.m. They ordered Lopez and her children away from Derek – who, predictably, had risen to his feet by this time – and then ordered him to remove his hands from his the pockets of his sweatshirt.

Less than a second later – according to several eyewitnesses at the scene – Derek was hit with a taser blast that knocked him sideways and sent him into convulsions. His right hand involuntarily shot out of its pocket, clenching spasmodically.

"Not in front of the kids," Derek gasped, as he tried to force his body to cooperate. "Get the kids out of here."

The officers continued to order Derek to put up his hands; he was physically unable to comply.

So they tased him again. This time he was driven to his side and vomited into a nearby flower bed.

Howard Mixon, a contractor who had been working nearby, couldn't abide the spectacle.

"That's not necessary!" he bellowed at the assailants. "That's overkill! That's overkill!"

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

Not long ago, a discussion came up on a well-known online messageboard regarding the president who regularly is observed returning the salute of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen, etc. This is a newer tradition that was brought about by Ronald Reagan during his presidency. As far as we know, no president previous to RR had done this. And the tradition has been carried on by RR's successor, and again by George W. Bush presently.

There has been some brouhaha over why the POTUS should be rendering/returning military salutes at all; notwithsatnding whether or not a particular president may or may not be a former military man or not. That messageboard discussion occurred at Free Reublic.RefSEE THIS TOPIC AT FREE REPUBLIC...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1807772/posts?page=1

The following explanation as to how President Reagan came to his conscious choice of saluting at all is as follows, from one of my own GyG sites. See also, my responses to the thread in question, at FR,namely my responses, #8, 35, and 44. Admittedly, not all of my own responses were directly related to the topic at hand, but some were my responses to others who had previously responded.~~~~~A SENSELESS SALUTE...OR, PRESIDENTIAL TRADITION?by GyG GyG (Login Dick Gaines)Forum Owner

I never ceased to enjoy reviewing our men and women in uniform and hope I started a new tradition for presidents. As commander in chief, I discovered it was customary for our uniformed men and women to salute whenever they saw me. When I'd walk down the steps of a helicopter, for example, there was always a marine waiting there to salute me. I was told presidents weren't supposed to return salutes, so I didn't, but this made me feel a little uncomfortable.

Normally, a person offering a salute waits until it is returned, then brings down his hand. Sometimes, I realized, the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman giving me a salute wasn't sure when he was supposed to lower his hand. Initially, I nodded and smiled and said hello and thought maybe that would bring down the hand, but usually it didn't. Finally, one night when Nancy and I were attending a concert at the Marine Corps headquarters, I told the commandant of marines, "I know it's customary for the president to receive these salutes, but I was once an officer and realize that you're not supposed to salute when you're in civilian clothes. I think there ought to be a regulation that the president could return a salute inasmuch as he is commander in chief and civilian clothes are his uniform." "Well, if you did return a salute," the general said, "I don't think anyone would say anything to you about it."

The next time I got a salute, I saluted back. A big grin came over the marine's face and down came his hand. From then on, I always returned salutes. When George Bush followed me into the White House, I encouraged him to keep up the tradition.

Courtesy of Simon and Schuster~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Just for contrast, another version of same story by MSM....-RWG...~~~~~The New York TimesApril 14, 2003

A Senseless SaluteBy JOHN LUKACS

PHOENIXVILLE, Pa.Soon after Ronald Reagan assumed his presidency, something new appearedwith his image on the television screen. When given a salute byuniformed military personnel, Mr. Reagan would return it, shooting hisright hand up to his bare head, his smile suggesting that this wassomething he liked to do. This unnecessary and unseemly habit wasadopted by Mr. Reagan's successors, including Bill Clinton andespecially George W. Bush, who steps off his plane and cocks a jauntysalute.

This gesture is of course quite wrong: such a salute has always requiredthe wearing of a uniform. But there is more to this than a decline inmilitary manners. There is something puerile in the Reagan (and nowBush) salute. It is the joyful gesture of someone who likes playingsoldier. It also represents an exaggeration of the president's militaryrole.

In the past, even presidents who had once been generals employedcivilian manners. They chose not to emphasize their militaryachievements during their presidential tenure â€" in accord with theAmerican tradition of the primacy of civilian over military rule. Oftheir constitutional prerogatives these men were of course aware.Lincoln would dismiss and appoint generals, and Truman knew that he hadthe right to fire MacArthur. During World War II, while Churchill oftenwore a uniform or at least a military cap, Roosevelt remaineddeterminedly in his civilian clothes. Indeed, none of the presidents whogoverned this country during its great wars defined themselves ascommanders in chief â€" not Washington, not Lincoln, not Wilson, notRoosevelt.

Yes, Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution says: "The presidentshall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actualservice of the United States . . ." Thereafter that very paragraph listsother presidential powers that have nothing to do with military matters.The brevity of the mention of a commander in chief â€" it is not even afull sentence â€" suggests that the country's founders did not attachvery great importance to this role.

But about 20 years ago the militarization of the image of the presidencybegan. It started with Mr. Reagan, who had no record of military serviceand who spent World War II in Hollywood (something that he tried onoccasion to obscure). There were his fervent, sentimental and sometimestearful expressions when meeting or speaking to American soldiers,sailors and airmen. There was, too, his easy and self-satisfyingwillingness to employ the armed forces of the United States in rapid andspectacular military operations against minuscule targets and "enemies"like Grenada, Nicaragua and Libya. President Bush, too, enjoys immersinghimself in the warm bath of jubilant approbation at large gatherings ofsoldiers.

Like the boy soldier salute, the sentimentalization of the military isjuvenile. Television depictions of modern technological warfare, forexample, make it seem as if a military campaign were but a superb game,an occasional Super Bowl that America is bound to win â€" and withalmost no human losses. ("We'll keep our fighting men and women out ofharm's way" â€" a senseless phrase that emerged during the Clintonyears.) The exaggerated vesting of the president with his supreme roleas commander in chief is a new element in our national history.

When the Roman republic gave way to empire, the new supreme ruler,Augustus chose to name himself not "rex," king, but "imperator," fromwhich our words emperor and empire derive, even though its originalmeaning was more like commander in chief. Thereafter Roman emperors cameto depend increasingly on their military. Will our future presidents?Let us doubt it. And yet . . .

John Lukacs is author, most recently, of ``Churchill: Visionary,Statesman, Historian.''

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

(Click Above For Original Site)http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer42.html

WHERE IS SMEDLEY BUTLER WHEN WE NEED HIM?

by Butler Shaffer

EXCERPT...

Smedley Butler is a name with which you may not be familiar, even though he twice won the Congressional Medal of Honor. If he were to appear on television today, he would be identified as "Maj. General Smedley Butler, USMC (ret.)" But even if he were still alive, he would not appear on any network television news shows because, late in life, he openly expressed his opposition to the war system. He went on to expose the symbiotic relationship existing between the institutional interests of corporate America and the state. Many former top generals and admirals have written memoirs around the theme "war is hell," but Gen. Butler went a step further, writing a book titled War Is a Racket.

Smedley defined a racket as "something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people." War, he goes on, "is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious" of rackets. Reflecting upon his own early 20th century career, he noted that, "I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism." He related how he had helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests, Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank, a number of Central American countries more pleasant for Wall Street interests, the Dominican Republic more conducive to the sugar industry, and China more compatible with the interests of Standard Oil. Then, after observing how he had helped supply the coercive, deadly force to advance corporate interests throughout various parts of the world, Butler added: "I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." You can see that his book does for adults what The Emperor's New Clothes does for children.

I have my doubts that we shall be hearing such candor anytime soon from the Bush administration's appointed military ruler of Iraq, Lt. Gen. Jay Garner. I have seen far too many retired military officers on network television news and talk shows faithfully reciting the Establishment's position on the necessity for, the success of, and the bright prospects for the American government's military involvement in Iraq (and, perhaps, other Middle Eastern countries as well). The media – which has been eager to ferret out the economic or ideological interests of those who oppose administration policies – could demonstrate a bit of "truth-in-advertising" by identifying the defense industry interests for whom these various retired generals, admirals, and colonels now work!

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

ERSNews has exclusively obtained never before seen photos showing a destroyed US Marine Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) that was attempting to evacuate wounded Marines out of a fierce battle with Iraqi forces on March 23, 2003 in An Nasiriyah as the US led collation rolled toward Baghdad. Eighteen U.S. Marines died that day. The incident remains the single largest loss of life for American troops in the Iraq conflict since the start of the war.

The official Pentagon investigation concluded that "friendly fire" had happened. But the report concluded that no US Marines had been killed by "friendly fire."

The photographs used in the official military investigation were withheld until obtained by ERSNews under the Freedom of Information Act after a long protracted fight over their release. The photos released by the Pentagon's Central Command (CENTCOM) were altered by military officials and despite repeated requests to provide unaltered photos, the Pentagon has so far refused to do so.

Two of the exclusive photos obtained from non-military sources (of a series of more than two dozen) show the complete destruction of the AAV. The photos were taken by an embedded photojournalist traveling with another US Marine unit who happened on the scene shortly after it had happened.

According to the Pentagon's own investigation released in early 2004, the mistake, made by a Marine forward air controller, resulted in a US A-10 Warthog attacking the US Marine vehicles. The A-10, from a Pennsylvania Air National Guard unit, targeted and destroyed the AAV with at least one and possibly two Maverick missiles according to the A-10 pilot's account of the ill-fated attack. The name of the A-10 pilot, has never been made public nor has the name of the Mar

Pentagon investigators concluded that they couldn't determine what killed the nine US Marines -- despite the fact that their own investigation determined that the AAV was struck by at least one Maverick missile fired by the American A-10. Although an initial Military investigation determined that six to seven Marines were killed by friendly fire, that conclusion was later changed and eliminated from the final report.

One key piece of evidence could have been the A-10 Heads-Up-Display (HUD) cockpit videotape. The HUD tape itself was never located by investigators and according to the pilot, who fired two Maverick missiles at the Marine AAV in question, the tape was lost somehow and probably accidentally re-recorded.

The photographs exclusively obtained by ERSNews and additional on-scene eyewitness accounts are evidence the Pentagon and Marines never uncovered in their official investigation.<>Nine U.S. Marines killed were positively identified as having been inside AAV 208. ERSNews has obtained the names of the Marines who died that fateful day in An Nasaryiah.

The Enterprise Report will utilize the talents of its journalistcreators and contributors to bring the public stories that can't be found anywhere else.

We will take the high road when we can, but we won't be afraid to reporton stories that maybe Walter Cronkite never would have touched.

It's a brave new media world out there and the rules are not being set by us,but we will do our best to get into the game and make some news and informthe public to the best of our talent and abilities!<>If you like what you see let us know, if you don't, we could care less, but let us know anyway!

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

In an outfit famed for its toughness, leathery, rock-jawed Brigadier General Lewis Burwell Puller, U.S.M.C., is as tough as they come. In the '20s, as a young marine, he led native troops against bandits in Haiti and Nicaragua, so awed his troops with his parade-ground voice and his gallantry in battle that they named him El Tigre.

By 1932, "Chesty" Puller had won two Navy Crosses and was well on his way to becoming a legend of the Corps. He served with the "Horse Marines" at Peking, with the famed 4th Marines at Shanghai in the days of the Japanese occupation of China's metropolis. In World War II, he commanded a battalion and then a regiment of the ist Marine Division, fought from Guadal canal* to Peleliu, won two more Navy Crosses, was wounded seven times.

Last week, after nine months in Korea, weather-beaten Chesty Puller, 52, assistant commander of the ist Division, veteran of the Inchon landing and the Marines' heroic retreat from the Changjin Reservoir, was back in the U.S. to take over a training command.

Facing the press, he announced that he was under strict orders not to criticize anyone. Then, in his best parade-ground voice, he got off a few observations:

"What the American people want to do is fight a war without getting hurt. You can't do that any more than you can go into a barroom fight without getting hurt."

Air power can't live up to some of the things claimed for it. The Air Force does not understand close air support, "does not believe in it," and "has never practiced it."

¶"The rifle and the bayonet are still the most important weapons the Army has ... I want [the Marines] to be able to march 20 miles, the last five at double time, and then be ready to fight . . ."

¶"Our officer corps have had far too much schooling and far too little service in the field of battle . . . Throw all these girls out of the camps. Get rid of the ice cream and candy. Give 'em beer and whisky—that'll help some. Get some pride in them. Tell them they're men . . ."

¶"Unless the American people are willing to send their sons out to fight an aggressor, there just isn't going to be any United States. A bunch of foreign soldiers will come over and take our women and breed not only another race of people, but a hardier race of people."

Then Chesty Puller caught a plane, flew to his home & family in Saluda, Va. His salty remarks had sent the Pentagon into a close-mouthed swivet, had moved the W.C.T.U. to complain that liquor could leave troops "fuddleduddied." By the time he reached home, Chesty had pulled his chest in, had no more to say.

*His message, in a lull in a fierce battle for Guadalcanal's Henderson Field: "Dead Japanese present a disposal problem."

~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Friday, March 16, 2007

The following is an e-mail from Ben Frank that I received back in 1999.This is just one of the things that set me on the path of discovering a long line of myths, erroneous legends, and just plain BS.The news on Ben jiggled a memory of this 1999 e-mail from him in my old mind-housing-group, and this time I actually found the e-mail that I had ratholed at the time.

BTW, have y'all changed yer clocks?What? That was last week? Too late now--well that's what they (gub-mint) want you to believe.They control everything including the time; the "time change" is just their check on things, to see that nobody balks at their orders (bitchin' doesn't count). God help the USA--and God help our enemies if we ever get a Leader!

The statement that the red stripe on dress blue trouserswas a "blood" stripe commemorating the Marines killed in the battle for Chapultepec in Mexico City in 1847 is a long-perpetuated myth passed on to generations of boots by their DIs.

It simply is not true.

To quote LtCol Charlie Cureton in "The Marines," the wearing of stripes on trousers began in 1834, following the Army's practice of havingtrouser stripes the color of the facings of uniform jackets. Colonel Commandant Archibald Henderson prescribed buff-white stripes for officers and sergeants.When, in 1839, the uniform changed to dark blue coatsfaced red, officers' trousers' stripes became dark blueedged in red.

Ten years later the stripes changed to red, and overthe years, there were variations.

Benis M. Frank, 82, a Marine Corps chief historian who started the military branch's oral history program, died March 10 at Prince George's Hospital Center. He had congestive heart failure.

Mr. Frank, a Bowie resident, was a Marine Corps veteran of World War II and the Korean War and rose to the rank of captain in the Marine Corps Reserve.

After a career in sales and teaching, he joined the Marine Corps as a civilian in 1961. He worked in the History and Museums Division at headquarters and started its oral history section in the early 1960s. He was chief historian from 1991 until retiring in 1997.

Among his books were "A Brief History of the 3d Marines" (1962), "Okinawa: Touchstone to Victory" (1970), "Halsey" (1973) and "U.S. Marines in Lebanon, 1982-1984" (1987).

Of the last book, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote it was an "extremely enlightening and useful history of the corps' 18-month experience in Lebanon -- as the marines themselves saw it. . . . It is not only a valuable short history, but also a gold mine of raw material for anyone who might want to write about this misadventure."

Mr. Frank was general editor of the History and Museums Division's World War II 50th anniversary series of commemorative monographs. He also contributed to the Simon and Schuster Encyclopedia of World War II, the Dictionary of American Biography, the Oxford Companion to American Military History and other reference works.

He was a recipient of the Navy's Distinguished Civilian Service Medal.

Benis Morton Frank was born in Amsterdam, N.Y., and grew up in Stamford, Conn. He was a 1949 history graduate of the University of Connecticut and did graduate work in international relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

He participated in the invasions of Peleliu and Okinawa during World War II and returned to active duty in the Korean War, serving as a battalion intelligence officer.

He was a fellow and former governor of the Company of Military Historians and former managing editor of its quarterly publication, the Military Collector & Historian.

He was a member of the Military Order of the Carabao and a founding member and president of the Virginia Scottish Games Association.

Survivors include his wife of 46 years, Marylouise Swatowicz Frank of Bowie; three children, Karen Beck of Annapolis, Jennifer Raymond of Bowie and Victor Frank of Silver Spring; a brother; five grandchildren; and a great-granddaughter.

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

At the risk of sounding like a flim-flam dealer in "opportunities of a lifetime," I will begin with a question. Are you willing to devote ten to fifteen minutes a day to furthering your knowledge of liberty—how it has been taken away and how we can get it back? If so, you are at the right place and will enjoy this series. If not, you might as well hit the delete button without reading further.

My general purpose with The Essence of Liberty Series is to provide an introduction and sound basic foundation in the fundamentals of a discipline that integrates principles of economics with a natural law based ethic into a single whole—a truly universal philosophy of political economy applicable to all men at all times and in all places.

I attempt to accomplish this by "capturing the essence" of some of the classical works in the "science" of liberty in as few words as possible and in a language understandable by the reasonably intelligent person without formal education in political science or economics. In the process I hope to whet the appetite for the original and more.

My ultimate objective is to make these logically based, common sense ideas available to a wider audience and, thereby, make a small contribution to the struggle for liberty. If I succeeded, that will have been my only small claim to originality because the ideas are from the minds and the pens of the authors. The errors are mine.

I will begin with a detailed, chapter by chapter, review and summary of Our Enemy, the State: A Study of Social Power vs. State Power and of The State in Colonial America by Albert Jay Nock. My reason for beginning here is its focus on the colonial period. After reading this, you will never see the constitution the same again.

Next, will be a summary of No Treason by Lysander Spooner, the Yankee radical abolitionist who wrote concerning the war of Yankee aggression (and in defense of secession, I might add). The logic of choosing this for second place is based on his treatment of the constitution. If you see the constitution different after reading Nock, you will view it even more so after Spooner.

Part 3 will come from one of Thomas DiLorenzo's works, Lincoln Unmasked. Since Spooner brought us up to Lincoln's time, it is perhaps logical to explore just exactly how much liberty was lost at the hands of a much venerated, but arguably the most evil, president these united States has ever had.

The People's Pottage by Garet Garett will follow. Garett primarily deals with liberty lost during the WWI—WWII—New Deal era. If you are not angry by now, you will be absolutely shocked by the shenanigans and usurpations that went on virtually un-noticed.

So, enjoy and learn as we begin with the Introduction to Our Enemy: the State.

Yours for freedom in our lifetimes.

Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

The Essence of Liberty: Part 1

Compiled and Summarized by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Our Enemy, The State: A Study of Social Power vs. State Power and of The State in Colonial America by Albert Jay Nock. Available from the Mises Institute at www.mises.org

Foreword by Edmund A. Opiz (Pages 1-9)

Having been educated in the "grand old fortifying classical curriculum," Albert Jay Nock was a man of letters. He did graduate work in theology and served as an Episcopal minister for a decade before becoming a journalist.

He inspires his audience to do the best for themselves because that is the only way for anyone to do any real service for anyone else. In his own words, "There's only one way to improve society…present it with one improved unit – yourself."

The prevailing belief today is that political means can cure economic and social woes. The idea is that man has been victimized by his institutions but democracy has given him the power to improve his condition by enlarging the State for the good of all.

All Statists agree on one thing—the desirability of a centralized State with virtually unlimited authority to interfere with every aspect of life. Their problem is that they do not examine the State itself. As a result, good intentions lead to contrary results. We must come to a better understanding of the nature of the State.

There are two political institutions—Government and State. Government secures the individual's rights and maximizes his opportunity to pursue his goals. The State disadvantage some for the benefit of others. Consequently, as Mencken put it, the State is "the common enemy of all…decent men."

Government's essential function is the application of lawful force so that peaceful citizens may go freely about their business. By contrast, the State uses legal violence against peaceful citizens. Clearly oppression (the State) is the antithesis of the Rule of Law (Government).

The State's legal apparatus is perverted by its seeking of support from interest groups. Since it has economic advantages to dispense, groups are organized to take the give-aways. Thus they are able to use public power for private advantage. The losers are society's productive members.

To illustrate, a manufacturer enjoys a legal advantage from tariff protection. But a businessman on the free market has no such leverage. He cannot force any private citizen to do anything, unless the law grants him a license. Then, in that case he becomes a component of the State.

Furthermore, unions are a component of the State. National legislation grants them a monopoly on the power to exact an above market wage in certain industries. Consequently, unions devote enormous amounts of money and labor to get their favored politicians elected.

It boils down to power concerning which there are three fundamental questions:

1) Who shall posses the power? The answers to that on have ranged from Monarchy backed by divine right to Democracy based on "majority rule."

2) For whose benefit shall the economic advantage accrue? The royal family lived well strictly because of their privileged position. They got something for nothing. Their wealth was not obtained from anything they produced and offered in voluntary exchanges. They lived off of the fruits of others' labor.

3) At whose expense? A society structured along State lines must have victims—people whose interests are deliberately sacrificed.

Nock's anti-Statist philosophy emphasizes social power vs. State based power. Social power requires liberty.

According to Franz Oppenheimer, States, throughout all of history, have originated in war and conquest. Some lean and hungry nomadic group moves in on a soft, sedentary group and sets itself up as a ruling class. They quell discontent, maintain order and, of course, extract tribute. Robbery is the primary labor saving device. The State is a second (and safer) way.

Nock adopts Oppenheimer's terminology for explaining the two ways to satisfy human needs. The first is to produce by applying energy to raw materials in nature. He calls this the "economic means." This, of course, involves work. Since man will do just about anything to avoid work, he has a natural tendency toward the "political means"—e.g. the State.

After one reads this book, his political perceptions will never be the same because he will understand the true nature of the State as "an institution distinct from society and not the same as Government." He will realize that "the State is the institutionalization of the sinful desire to live off others…(It) exists because a significant number of people want a respectable arrangement which enables them to get what they want without offering anything commensurate in exchange." Furthermore, the State seduces its victims with the idea that it is possible for them to someday operate their own racket and, thereby, converts victims into accomplices.

Many (most, actually) want something for nothing so the State is created in our own image. That image can only be changed by a moral transformation. Nothing short of this will bring the State down. A larcenous people will eventually write theft into their statutes. People who covet their neighbor's property are certain to find legal ways to steal it. This is how "The Welfare State" was invented.

When life, liberty and property are secure, people acquire their economic needs through production and voluntary exchange in response to consumer demands and within the Rule of Law. There is only one way to help "the poor." Unleash the incredible power of the market by getting off their backs. "The poor" are not the reason for the Welfare State. They are the excuse.

In reality the Welfare Stat hurts the poor by reducing productivity and, therefore, prosperity. It actually handicaps and erects obstacles to those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. The State has no other function but as an instrument for siphoning goods from those who produce to ruling elite.

Today social power is intermingled with State power. The manufacturer is subsidized by the State (but) is forced to pay above market wages by the State protected union which, in turn, has its advantage taxed away to bail out industry. The doctor is enriched by Medicare but forced to subsidize price support programs for farmers who, in turn, underwrite "urban renewal." The welfare recipient pays taxes to support the welfare bureaucracy while the bureaucrat pays ever higher process due to State generated inflation.

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

"Gunny" LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he "simply got tired of being guilty of treason."

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu .

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author's name and contact information and the URL www.flyoverpress.com .

FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don't accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don't lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government's budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

HOME

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word "subscribe" on the subject line.

OUR SPONSORS

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

PC At Its Best - The Chesty Puller Dedication Stone Brouhaha...by Dick Gaines

This one involves brouhaha, back during 2003, by individual Marines--mostly former Marines, retired Marines, etc. over a dedication stone in Puller Park in Virginia.This regarding the late LtGen Lewis B. Puller USMC, probably the most beloved general officer of the Marine Corps. Briefly, the supposed problem was over the words engraved on the stone, and the use of the word "soldier" thereon. Obviously, many Marines are ignorant of our own Marine Corps history, and our traditions, at least regarding the historical use of the word Soldier for Marines.

As I said at the time..." Despite the greatness of the Corps, individual Marines are indeed among the foremost liars, braggarts, and vain ignoramuses of the world. Again, I'm on the other side of this argument, as usual." Well, my words then may have been stronger than appropriate, but I see no basis for apology and/or even to "express regret"--unlike some others today who do so when they shouldn't, no names mentioned.

The plaque in question very clearly indicated LtGen Puller to be a Marine; in addition, there were words to indicate that he was a Patriot, Soldier, etc. Nothing wrong w/that in the context it was used..."

There is no dishonor--quite the contrary-- in the use of the name "Soldier" for a Marine. In the Old Corps many knowledgeable Marines referred to both themselves and other Marines as Soldiers, and took pride in doing so.

In any case, so much hell was raised about "Soldier" appearing on the stone that someone apparently assumed they knew what they were talking about, and the stone was changed to their satisfaction. SOP for the loudmouth numnutz and such of the world.

" Later that day I complained to the MC COabout the base commander referring to me as a"Soldier." My CO got a real chuckle out of mycomplaint, and told me that instead of theCaptain demeaning me, he had instead paid me thehighest compliment possible. My CO was LtColLouis Nathaniel King, and had been a white hat in1936 when he passed the exam for the NavalAcademy, graduated from there, and chose to enterthe MC. Of course, he, unlike myself, was steepedin Naval traditions and knew all about the use ofthe term "Soldier." On occasion I've referred toother Marines as "Soldiers," always explainingthat was the highest compliment that I could callthem with our "Soldiers of the sea" origins."

(and, also from above...)

" Please note that Ialways capitalize "Soldiers," "Sailors," and"Airmen." In my book they deserve the samerespect that I pay to my beloved Marines.

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~

Thursday, March 15, 2007

NOTE:This replaces the same information formerly posted to several of the Gunny G Sites & Forums on which this info no longer exists.~~~~~

WRMEA.comhttp://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0395/9503079.htm

March 1995, pgs. 79-81

Middle East History—It Happened In March

Israel Charged With Systematic Harassment of U.S. MarinesBy Donald Neff

It was 12 years ago, on March 14, 1983, that the commandant of the Marine Corps sent a highly unusual letter to the secretary of defense expressing frustration and anger at Israel. General R.H. Barrow charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon. There was, he wrote, a systematic pattern of harassment by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that was resulting in "life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country."

Barrow's letter added: "It is inconceivable to me why Americans serving in peacekeeping roles must be harassed, endangered by an ally...It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S. commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed, orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes."1

Israel's motives were less obtuse than the diplomatic general pretended. It was widely believed then, and now, that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, one of Israel's most Machiavellian politician-generals, was creating the incidents deliberately in an effort to convince Washington that the two forces had to coordinate their actions in order to avoid such tensions. This, of course, would have been taken by the Arabs as proof that the Marines were not really in Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but as allies of the Israelis, a perception that would have obvious advantages for Israel.2

Barrow's extraordinary letter was indicative of the frustrations and miseries the Marines suffered during their posting to Lebanon starting on Aug. 25, 1982, as a result of Israel's invasion 11 weeks earlier. Initially a U.S. unit of 800 men was sent to Beirut harbor as part of a multinational force to monitor the evacuation of PLO guerrillas from Beirut. The Marines, President Reagan announced, "in no case... would stay longer than 30 days."3 This turned out to be only partly true. They did withdraw on Sept. 10, but a reinforced unit of 1,200 was rushed back 15 days later after the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila that accompanied the Israeli seizure of West Beirut. The U.S. forces remained until Feb. 26, 1984.4

During their-year-and-a-half posting in Lebanon, the Marines suffered 268 killed.5 The casualties started within a week of the return of the Marines in September 1982. On the 30th, a U.S.-made cluster bomb left behind by the Israelis exploded, killing Corporal David Reagan and wounding three other Marines.6

Corporal Reagan's death represented the dangers of the new mission of the Marines in Lebanon. While their first brief stay had been to separate Israeli forces from Palestinian fighters evacuating West Beirut, their new mission was as part of a multinational force sent to prevent Israeli troops from attacking the Palestinian civilians left defenseless there after the withdrawal of PLO forces. As President Reagan said: "For this multinational force to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut."7"Incidents are timed, orchestrated, and executed for Israeli political purposes."

Israel's siege of Beirut during the summer of 1982 had been brutal and bloody, reaching a peak of horror on Aug. 12, quickly known as Black Thursday. On that day, Sharon's forces launched at dawn a massive artillery barrage that lasted for 11 straight hours and was accompanied by saturation air bombardment.8 As many as 500 persons, mainly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, were killed.9

On top of the bombardment came the massacres the next month at Sabra and Shatila, where Sharon's troops allowed Lebanese Maronite killers to enter the camps filled with defenseless civilians. The massacres sickened the international community and pressure from Western capitals finally forced Israel to withdraw from Beirut in late September. Troops from Britain, France, Italy and the United States were interposed between the Israeli army and Beirut, with U.S. Marines deployed in the most sensitive area south of Beirut at the International Airport, directly between Israeli troops and West Beirut.

It was at the airport that the Marines would suffer their Calvary over the next year. Starting in January 1983, small Israeli units began probing the Marine lines. At first the effort appeared aimed at discovering the extent of Marine determination to resist penetration. The lines proved solid and the Marines' determination strong. Israeli troops were politely but firmly turned away. Soon the incidents escalated, with both sides pointing loaded weapons at each other but no firing taking place. Tensions were high enough by late January that a special meeting between U.S. and Israeli officers was held in Beirut to try to agree on precise boundaries beyond which the IDF would not penetrate.10No Stranger to the Marines

However, on Feb. 2 a unit of three Israeli tanks, led by Israeli Lt. Col. Rafi Landsberg, tried to pass through Marine/Lebanese Army lines at Rayan University Library in south Lebanon. By this time, Landsberg was no stranger to the Marines. Since the beginning of January he had been leading small Israeli units in probes against the Marine lines, although such units would normally have a commander no higher than a sergeant or lieutenant. The suspicion grew that Sharon's troops were deliberately provoking the Marines and Landsberg was there to see that things did not get out of hand. The Israeli tactics were aimed more at forcing a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy than merely probing lines.

In the Feb. 2 incident, the checkpoint was commanded by Marine Capt. Charles Johnson, who firmly refused permission for Landsberg to advance. When two of the Israeli tanks ignored his warning to halt, Johnson leaped on Landsberg's tank with pistol drawn and demanded Landsberg and his tanks withdraw. They did.11

Landsberg and the Israeli embassy in Washington tried to laugh off the incident, implying that Johnson was a trigger-happy John Wayne type and that the media were exaggerating a routine event. Landsberg even went so far as to claim that he smelled alcohol on Johnson's breath and that drunkenness must have clouded his reason. Marines were infuriated because Johnson was well known as a teetotaler. Americans flocked to Johnson's side. He received hundreds of letters from school children, former Marines and from Commandant Barrow.12 It was a losing battle for the Israelis and Landsberg soon dropped from sight.

But the incidents did not stop. These now included "helicopter harassment," by which U.S.-made helicopters with glaring spotlights were flown by the Israelis over Marine positions at night, illuminating Marine outposts and exposing them to potential attack. As reports of these incidents piled up, Gen. Barrow received a letter on March 12 from a U.S. Army major stationed in Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO). The letter described a systematic pattern of Israeli attacks and provocations against UNTSO troops, including instances in which U.S. officers were singled out for "near-miss" shootings, abuse and detention.13 That same day two Marine patrols were challenged and cursed by Israeli soldiers.14

Two days later Barrow wrote his letter to Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, who endorsed it and sent it along to the State Department. High-level meetings were arranged and the incidents abated, perhaps largely because by this time Ariel Sharon had been fired as defense minister. He had been found by an Israeli commission to have had "personal responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatila massacres.15

Despite the bad taste left from the clashes with the Israelis, in fact no Marines had been killed in the incidents and their lines had been secure up to the end of winter in 1983. Then Islamic guerrillas, backed by Iran, became active. On the night of April 17, 1983, an unknown sniper fired a shot that went through the trousers of a Marine sentry but did not harm him. For the first time, the Marines returned fire.16

The next day, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up by a massive bomb, with the loss of 63 lives. Among the 17 Americans killed were CIA Mideast specialists, including Robert C. Ames, the agency's top Middle East expert.17 Disaffected former Israeli Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky later claimed that Israel had advance information about the bombing plan but had decided not to inform the United States, a claim denied by Israel.18 The Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Veteran correspondent John Cooley considered the attack "the day [Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini's offensive against America in Lebanon began in earnest." 19

Still, it was not until four months later, on Aug. 28, that Marines came under direct fire by rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at International Airport. They returned fire with M-16 rifles and M-60 machine guns. The firefight resumed the next day with Marines firing 155mm artillery, 81mm mortars and rockets from Cobra helicopter gunships against Shi'i Muslim positions. Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in the exchange, the first casualties in actual combat since the Marines had landed the previous year.20

From this time on, the combat involvement of the Marines grew. Their actions were generally seen as siding with Israel against Muslims, slowly changing the status of the Marines as neutral peacekeepers to opponents of the Muslims.21 Israel could hardly have wished for more. The polarization meant that increasingly the conflict was being perceived in terms of the U.S., Israel and Lebanon's Christians against Iran, Islam and Lebanon's Shi'i Muslims.Accelerating the Conflict

Israel accelerated the building conflict on Sept. 3, 1993 by unilaterally withdrawing its troops southward, leaving the Marines exposed behind their thin lines at the airport. The United States had asked the Israeli government to delay its withdrawal until the Marines could be replaced by units of the Lebanese army, but Israel refused.22 The result was as feared. Heavy fighting immediately broke out between the Christian Lebanese Forces and the pro-Syrian Druze units, both seeking to occupy positions evacuated by Israel, while the Marines were left in the crossfire. 23On Sept. 5, two Marines were killed and three wounded as fighting escalated between Christian and Muslim militias.24

In an ill-considered effort to subdue the combat, the Sixth Fleet frigate Bowen fired several five-inch naval guns, hitting Druze artillery positions in the Chouf Mountains that were firing into the Marine compound at Beirut airport.25 It was the first time U.S. ships had fired into Lebanon, dramatically raising the level of combat. But the Marines' exposed location on the flat terrain of the airport left them in an impossible position. On Sept. 12, three more Marines were wounded. 26

On Sept. 13, President Reagan authorized what was called aggressive self-defense for the Marines, including air and naval strikes.27 Five days later the United States essentially joined the war against the Muslims when four U.S. warships unleashed the heaviest naval bombardment since Vietnam into Syrian and Druze positions in eastern Lebanon in support of the Lebanese Christians.28 The bombardment lasted for three days and was personally ordered by National Security Council director Robert McFarlane, a Marine Corps officer detailed to the White House who was in Lebanon at the time and was also a strong supporter of Israel and its Lebanese Maronite Christian allies. McFarlane issued the order despite the fact that the Marine commander at the airport, Colonel Timothy Geraghty, strenuously argued against it because, in the words of correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, "he knew that it would make his soldiers party to what was now clearly an intra-Lebanese fight, and that the Lebanese Muslims would not retaliate against the Navy's ships at sea but against the Marines on shore." 29

By now, the Marines were under daily attack and Muslims were charging they were no longer neutral.30 At the same time the battleship USS New Jersey, with 16-inch guns, arrived off Lebanon, increasing the number of U.S. warships offshore to 14. Similarly, the Marine contingent at Beirut airport was increased from 1,200 to 1,600.31A Tragic Climax

The fight now was truly joined between the Shi'i Muslims and the Marines, who were essentially pinned down in their airport bunkers and under orders not to take offensive actions. The tragic climax of their predicament came on Oct. 23, when a Muslim guerrilla drove a truck past guards at the Marine airport compound and detonated an explosive with the force of 12,000 pounds of dynamite under a building housing Marines and other U.S. personnel. Almost simultaneously, a car-bomb exploded at the French compound in Beirut. Casualties were 241 Americans and 58 French troops killed. The bombings were the work of Hezbollah, made up of Shi'i Muslim guerrillas supported by Iran.32

America's agony increased on Dec. 3, when two carrier planes were downed by Syrian missiles during heavy U.S. air raids on eastern Lebanon.33On the same day, eight Marines were killed in fighting with Muslim militiamen around the Beirut airport.34

By the start of 1984, an all-out Shi'i Muslim campaign to rid Lebanon of all Americans was underway. The highly respected president of the American University of Beirut, Dr. Malcolm Kerr, a distinguished scholar of the Arab world, was gunned down on Jan. 18 outside his office by Islamic militants aligned with Iran.35 On Feb. 5, Reagan made one of his stand-tall speeches by saying that "the situation in Lebanon is difficult, frustrating and dangerous. But this is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run."36

The next day Professor Frank Regier, a U.S. citizen teaching at AUB, was kidnapped by Muslim radicals.37 Regier's kidnapping was the beginning of a series of kidnappings of Americans in Beirut that would hound the Reagan and later the Bush administrations for years and lead to the eventual expulsion of nearly all Americans from Lebanon where they had prospered for more than a century. Even today Americans still are prohibited from traveling to Lebanon.

The day after Regier's kidnapping, on Feb. 7, 1984, Reagan suddenly reversed himself and announced that all U.S. Marines would shortly be "redeployed." The next day the battleship USS New Jersey fired 290 rounds of one-ton shells from its 16-inch guns into Lebanon as a final act of U.S. frustration.38 Reagan's "redeployment" was completed by Feb. 26, when the last of the Marines retreated from Lebanon.

The mission of the Marines had been a humiliating failure—not because they failed in their duty but because the political backbone in Washington was lacking. The Marines had arrived in 1982 with all sides welcoming them. They left in 1984 despised by many and the object of attacks by Muslims. Even relations with Israel were strained, if not in Washington where a sympathetic Congress granted increased aid to the Jewish state to compensate it for the costs of its bungled invasion, then between the Marines and Israeli troops who had confronted each other in a realpolitik battlefield that was beyond their competence or understanding. The Marine experience in Lebanon did not contribute toward a favorable impression of Israel among many Americans, especially since the Marines would not have been in Lebanon except for Israel's unprovoked invasion.

This negative result is perhaps one reason a number of Israelis and their supporters today oppose sending U.S. peacekeepers to the Golan Heights as part of a possible Israeli-Syrian peace treaty. A repeat of the 1982-84 experience would certainly not be in Israel's interests at a time when its supporters are seeking to have a budget-conscious Congress continue unprecedented amounts of aid to Israel.

"In February, the understanding with the Israelis over boundaries and the conduct of patrols--which was thought to be a settled matter--was found to be not so clearly understood as originally thought. The single-most notable demonstration of this lack of understanding occurred on 2 February, when three israeli tanks attempted to go through Captain Charles B. Johnson's Company L position.

At about 0800, from his observation post, Captain Johnson, together with the advance party of the British MNF contingent,27 observed an Israeli patrol coming up Old Sidon Road from the south. This was normal. Half an hour later, he spotted a north-to-south patrol, which also was normal. It consisted of three tanks, two armored personnel carriers (APCs), and dismounted troops. "Again, we're seeing them about 3,000 meters off. We could see that far, all the way down the Sidon Road."28

The only thing that was unusual about this patrol was that the troops ere dismounted, for the Israeli patrols in the previous two weeks had all been mounted. Captain Johnson] then went on to say:

. . . sometime between 0830 and 0900, one of my surveillance people . . . spotted three additional tanks coming on the road . . . the one they had built along the railroad tracks, and then they [the tanks] broke off the road and they continued up the railroad tracks right up to the edge of the university grounds. . . . That's when I knew something was up. There were three tanks road. . . There was no tactical reason for them to do that. . . . They brought tanks right through the middle of Shuwayfat, which is a Muslim area and it's relatively dangerous to do that.29

What Captain Johnson had spotted were three tanks ng from the north and three tanks coming from the south. He couldn't see them when they were in the town, but they were spotted shortly after as they left it and broke through the orchard on the western side of the Sidon Road into the buffer zone between the road and the university. The tanks were heading for a section of the fence where Captain johnson had confronted an APC-mounted Israeli patrol on 20 January. The COmpany L commander quickly got in his jeep and went to the spot the tanks were approaching. Captain Johnson didn't think that:

. . . they would actually try to come through a joint Marine-lebanese checkpoint like that. But once it developed, I was very concerned that if the tanks were allowed to move forward, there was a very dangerous situation, because the road they were on . . . went right through the heart of the

--45--

university . . . divided the Marine company and the Lebanese company.30

Johnson feared that if the tanks attempted to pass, a firefight might erupt between the Lebanese and the Israelis. If a fight ensued, the Marines would have to support the lebanese. He wasn't worried about the Marines' fire discipline, but he was concerned about that of the Lebanese soldiers.

As the Israeli tanks approached the fence, Captain Johnson jumped out of his jeep, ran up to the tanks, and stood in the center of the road. The lead tank stopped about six inches in front of Johnson, would told the Israeli lieutenant colonel in the lead tank, "You will not pass through this position." After a short pause, the Israeli dismounted, spoke with Johnson, and then climbed back aboard the tank, saying that he was going through. Johnson later stated that he replied, "You will have to kill me first."31 He drew his pistol, chambered a round, and held the weapon at the ready position. There was another pause as the Israeli officer apparently spoke over his radio to his headquarters. The lead tank then pulled slowly to the side of the road with Captain Johnson walking alongside and then the two others suddenly revved up their engines and whipped forward toward the fence.

The young Marine captain jumped on the lead tank, grabbed the Israeli officer, and yelled at him to order his tanks halted. The tank commander complied and then purportedly told Johnson, "One thing we don't want to do is kill each other." Johnson answered, "Yes, but if you keep doing things like this, the likelihood is going to occur."32

While the local Arab radio stations were telling and retelling the story of the American who stopped the three Israeli tanks singlehandedly, the Israeli press was accusing Captain Johnson of having liquor on his breath and being drunk. Worse, they called the whole affair a misunderstanding on the part of the Marines. Confronted by evidence, among other things, that Johnson was a teetotaler, the Israelis quickly toned down, and finally stopped such comments when they saw they were not going to be given credence.

Within a few minutes of the confrontation, Johnson's battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Matthews, arrived on the scene. He had observed part of what happened and asked Johnson a full and immediate report, "And I gave him the whole thing . . . and we spent about 20 minutes walking the ground an so forth."33 Matthews then said they should tell the whole story to Colonel Stokes, who went back to the fence area with Johnson and rewalked the area where the confrontation took place. The MAU commander reported the incident through the chain of command. The next day, 3 February, Israeli and American diplomats met in Beirut, where they agreed to mark the boundary lines more clearly so there would be no future misunderstandings.

A routine, daily press conference was held at 1600 on the afternoon of the 2d at Colonel Stokes' headquarters. The most important topic concerned a ricochet 75mm tank round that had landed in Company I's positions. Nothing was said about Captain Johnson's experience until the press stormed back into the compound at 2300 that evening, undoubtedly having been queried by their home offices why stories had not been filed on the U.S.-Israeli affair. When the reporters asked Colonel Stokes why he hadn't told them about it, he replied that no one had asked, and said further, ". . . it's not my job to determine what's newsworthy and what's not. . . ."34

Normally a quiet officer despite his impressive military presence, Captain Johnson was told by his CO that he was going to have to submit to the questions of the print and television reporters at a press conference, much as he disliked the prospects of such an encounter. A by-product of this instant fame was heavy mail. A large number of former Marines and retired servicemen wrote and sent messages of support. "A lot of children wrote from schools and they were really nice letters. A lot of people wrote. I got hundreds of letters." Captain Johnson also received a message from the Commandant after the 24th left Lebanon. "It was a wonderful message to my men, how he was proud of the men," Johnson said. In retrospect, Johnson never felt that what he had done was wrong. "I had no doubt in my mind that what I had done was the right thing. . . . I had regret that it happened, but I did not have any regret in what I had done."35"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MacBride, Sean, Israel in Lebanon: The Report of the International Commission to enquire into reported violations of international law by Israel during its invasion of Lebanon , London, Ithaca Press, 1983.

Ostrovsky, Victor and Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Peck, Juliana S., The Reagan Administration and the Palestinian Question: The First Thousand Days , Washington, DC, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984.

*Randal, Jonathan, Going all the Way, New York, The Viking Press, 1983.

Woodward, Bob, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1987.

* Available through the AET Book Club

NOTES:

1 New York Times, 3/18/83. For a detailed review of these clashes, see Green, Living by the Sword, pp. 177-92, and Clyde Mark, "The Multinational Force in Lebanon," Congressional Research Service, 5/19/83.

Donald Neff is author of the Warriors trilogy on U.S.-Middle East relations and of the unpublished Middle East Handbook, a chronological data bank of significant events affecting U.S policy and the Middle East upon which this article is based. His books are available through the AET Book Club.

~~~~~~~~~~Note:GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.~~~~~